It’s
no secret that, of late, I’ve been experiencing a resurgence of interest -- a
love affair of sorts, I guess you could say -- with the disaster films of the
1970s.
The
Poseidon Adventure
(1972) and The Towering Inferno (1974) hold up beautifully, for example.
Each of those Irwin Allen-produced films concerns more than chaos and wreckage.
These are films about the human spirit, and the drive that compels us to keep
fighting when all hope seems lost.
My
love affair with the genre, however, hits a speed bump with this week’s featured
film, 1974’s Earthquake.
film written by George Fox and Mario Puzo and from director Mark Robson simply
isn’t in the same league as the efforts I note above. Instead, Earthquake is a meandering, largely
suspense-less effort that suffers from the fact that the action is too spread
out, and therefore tension is sacrificed. A ship at sea and a high-rise on fire are
largely inescapable, and concern people with nowhere to run, nowhere to
hide. Earthquake’s central
disaster -- a quake that registers 7 on the Richter Scale -- doesn’t mine any
particular location for suspense, and the result is a film that often feels
aimless and directionless.
It
doesn’t help, either, that high-point of this film -- the earthquake – occurs after
the first hour, and leaves very little of excitement left for the film’s
denouement.
The
acting in the film is pretty terrible too (Ava Gardner, I’m looking at you!),
and the character relationships are, at times, baffling.
The
last straw, perhaps, is the inconsistent special effects. Some moments during
the quake are believably rendered, but other moments -- such as the one
notorious moment involving blobs of cartoon blood in an elevator -- are
downright ludicrous.
Every
genre has its highs and lows for certain, and the disaster film format is no exception.
I believe was spoiled by the quality of The
Poseidon Adventure and The Towering Inferno, watched
back-to-back. Earthquake is thoroughly pedestrian.
But
hey, at least Earthquake is better than The Swarm (1978), right?
“The
question is: what in God’s name do we do now?”
In
Los Angeles, at the Seismological Institute, a young graduate student analyzes
data suggesting a tremor, and then a massive earthquake will strike the city in
less than 24 hours. His superiors are reluctant to believe his dire warning,
and equally reluctant to report his findings to the governor and the mayor.
When
the predicted tremor occurs, however, the seismologists leap into action, and
the governor mobilizes the National Guard in response.
But
no amount of preparation can adequately safe-guard Los Angeles from the
earthquake that strikes next. Rating a 7 on the Richter scale, this quake
brings skyscrapers to the ground, destroys free-ways, and sends house careening
off the Hollywood hills. Worse, the Hollywood Reservoir Dam crumbles, and parts
of the city flood.
Through
it all, a determined architect, Stewart Graff (Charlton Heston) in a bad
marriage with his boss’s daughter (Ava Gardner) shows determination and
pluck.
He
rescues a number of people, including his boss (Lorne Greene)m at his high-rise
office, and then teams up with a suspended police officer, Lou Slade (George
Kennedy) to rescue others in the city, including Stewart’s mistress, Denise
(Genevieve Bujold) and her young son, Cory (Tiger Williams).
While
Stewart attempts to save the injured and dying, others, including a psychotic
National Guardsman (Marjoe Gortner), attempt to take advantage of the disaster
for their own twisted agendas.
“This
used to be a hell of a town.”
In
my reviews of other 1970s disaster films, I’ve concentrated on the notion that
films like The Poseidon Adventure and The Towering Inferno thrive on philosophical
ideas about their disasters and human nature, not merely the depiction of those
disasters. For example, The Poseidon Adventure is about
fighting -- to the last breath -- to survive in difficult circumstances; to
find the part of God that dwells inside of you, to quote Gene Hackman’s
character, Reverend Scott.
And
The
Towering Inferno assiduously draws a contrast between reckless,
money-grubbing Big Business (represented by Richard Chamberlain and William Holden),
and the selflessness of San Francisco’s municipal fire fighters, led by
O’Halloran (Steve McQueen). One of these forces cares more about profit than
people, and it isn’t the firefighters.
Earthquake doesn’t feature a thematic
through line or depth that is comparable, alas. Early on, there is much
discussion about the responsibility of the seismologists to warn someone in
authority about the approaching quake. Is it right to sound the alarm, knowing that
it might start a panic to do so? Is it right to report speculation about a
quake, and risk looking like a fool to the media and city politicians if no
quake occurs?
These
are truly intriguing points, but after they are raised, the movie totally
abandons them.
Without
a central location -- or even a galvanizing idea -- to hold the film together, Earthquake
quickly proves episodic and underwhelming in terms of its narrative and the
hunt for deeper meaning.
We never find
out, for instance, why Stewart and Remy hate each other to such a dramatic
degree. They are an endlessly bicker-some
couple, and it’s difficult to have much sympathy for either one of them. Stewart is having affair, for instance, and
Remy fakes suicide attempts on a regular basis.
It’s not a terrible surprise when a Biblical flood washes them away in
the film’s final moments, given their “sins.”
But the scene isn’t as powerful as it might be because the audience
doesn’t really care for the characters.
Other
moments in Earthquake are downright bad. For instance, Walter Matthau hams
it up as a silly barfly wearing a pimp hat in several unnecessary scenes. Why
is his character even in the film? He’s a cartoon character who proves agonizingly
unfunny, and -- at the same time -- a walking, talking stereotype.
Similarly,
what are viewers to make of Marjoe Gortner’s character, a muscle-bound grocery
store worker in the National Guard who chooses the event of an earthquake to
address his grievances with a group of bullies, and then attempts to rape
Victoria Principal’s character, Rosa?
Is
he a psychopath? Nuts? A self-hating body-builder?
More
than likely, Gortner's character is present to provide some third act tension. The film badly requires that tension because the earthquake has already struck, and the flood is saved
for the denouement. Gortner's "Joad" may also represent a Vietnam Age distaste for soldiers, which was seen in a lot of 1970s movies and TV programs, and today transmits as pretty superficial.
The
most ridiculous moment in Earthquake, however, arrives when a
group of survivors board an elevator during the quake. The car shakes loose of its
cable and careens several dozen floors to the ground. There’s a great shot of the screaming people
in the compartment, but then several big ,animated bubbles of bright red blood are superimposed over the footage, and launched at the screen.
What
the hell?
For a film struggling so mightily to seem believable, and to meaningfully compete with The
Towering Inferno, this a reality-shattering moment of the highest order.
Earthquake
gets so
little right, actually. Ava Gardner is terribly miscast as Lorne Greene’s daughter and
Charlton Heston’s wife. I believe she was only three years younger than Greene
at this point, and she and Heston share what can only politely be termed “anti-chemistry.”
Worse,
some moments -- like the rescue of Genevieve Bujold’s son from an electrical
cable -- make the earthquake seem small and not, literally earth shattering.
But
most disappointing of all is the focus on soap opera plotting. Stewart’s promotion, Slade’s
disenchantment with the police force, Mile Quade’s motorcycle stunt, Denise’s
acting job and other issues are all brought up, but ultimately left unresolved
in the face of utter destruction.
I suppose the film could have considered the way man proposes, and God disposes, but even that idea is not enunciated here.
All
that established, I should also write that Earthquake features some beautiful
matte-painting of the destroyed Los Angeles landscape.
I
think that just about the only way this film could truly be described as gripping is
if audiences saw it in theaters in Sensurround. I can see how that rumbling effect
would add a whole new dimension to the film’s narrative.
Without the support of this gimmick, Earthquake is rendered, sadly, a completely two-dimensional affair.
Your reference to "soap opera" was most apt. When I saw this movie as a kid, I couldn't help but feel like it was a TV movie that had been dressed up with movie budget special effects. The inclusion of people like Lorne Greene and Marjoe Gortner (!) reinforced that feeling. Also, speaking as someone who saw it in the theatre with sensurround, I can tell you it did not enhance the experience. It was like going to a concert where the bass amp is cranked too high. Just a weird, annoying rumbling in the pit of your chest. By the time of the last aftershock, I was thinking, "Oh no, here we go again." I think this movie was the first time where I realized I could like a movie because it was bad, in the MST3K sense. I found it laughably bad.
ReplyDeleteYou are a perceptive reviewer, John. Yes, in simple terms: The Poseidon Adventure and The Towering Inferno, good; Earthquake, bad.
ReplyDeleteAs a young lad in the midst of the 'disaster film' cycle, I was bored by this one.
By the way, those beautiful matte paintings were done by the great Albert Whitlock, who also did the equally beautiful paintings for Star Trek, including the one of the lithium cracking station in "Where No Man Has Gone Before".
John I think the best part of EARTHQUAKE(1974) was the re-use of the footage in 1979 for the Cylon Raiders attacking Los Angeles in the Battlestar Glactica:1980 pilot movie "Galactica Discovers Earth".
ReplyDeleteSGB